Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: valid_hostname chokes on trailing dot

Expand Messages
  • Chad Whitacre
    John, ... Right, I stopped asserting that when Wietse and Noel told me that FQDN means something different for SMTP than for DNS. The question (I thought) was
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      John,

      > If it is, it does not back up your assertion that a trailing
      > dot is part of the FQDN.

      Right, I stopped asserting that when Wietse and Noel told me that
      FQDN means something different for SMTP than for DNS. The
      question (I thought) was what to point to from Wikipedia.


      chad



      John Peach wrote:
      >
      > On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:40:57 -0400
      > Chad Whitacre <chad@...> wrote:
      >
      >> >> Please cite the relevant section of the relevant RFC.
      >> > Happy to if you point me to it. I'm not an expert.
      >>
      >> Is this the right place?
      >>
      >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.5
      >>
      >
      > If it is, it does not back up your assertion that a trailing dot is
      > part of the FQDN.
      >
      >
    • Wietse Venema
      ... Does the text say SEPARATED by dots or TERMINATED by dot ? Wietse
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Chad Whitacre:
        > Is this the right place?
        >
        > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.5

        Does the text say "SEPARATED by dots" or "TERMINATED by dot"?

        Wietse
      • Chad Whitacre
        Wietse, ... We ve got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN means something different in SMTP than DNS. I m not trying to correct Postfix
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Wietse,

          > Sorry, that is backwards.
          >
          > If you want to "correct" Postfix behavior, then you need to
          > provide supporting documentation that Postfix is in error.
          >
          > So please point out the relevant sections of email related
          > RFCs, otherwise I suggest that you refrain from posting
          > "corrections".

          We've got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN
          means something different in SMTP than DNS. I'm not trying to
          correct Postfix behavior, I'm trying to find the best reference
          to add to Wikipedia's article on FQDNs. If I'm not mistaken, 5321
          2.3.5 is this reference (and, coincidentally, it appears that
          5321 is being published as we speak). Yes?



          chad
        • Noel Jones
          ... Yes, that looks like an appropriate link. it s certainly a better reference than this wandering thread... -- Noel Jones
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Chad Whitacre wrote:
            > Wietse,
            >
            > > Sorry, that is backwards.
            > >
            > > If you want to "correct" Postfix behavior, then you need to
            > > provide supporting documentation that Postfix is in error.
            > >
            > > So please point out the relevant sections of email related
            > > RFCs, otherwise I suggest that you refrain from posting
            > > "corrections".
            >
            > We've got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN means
            > something different in SMTP than DNS. I'm not trying to correct Postfix
            > behavior, I'm trying to find the best reference to add to Wikipedia's
            > article on FQDNs. If I'm not mistaken, 5321 2.3.5 is this reference
            > (and, coincidentally, it appears that 5321 is being published as we
            > speak). Yes?
            >
            >
            >
            > chad


            Yes, that looks like an appropriate link.
            it's certainly a better reference than this wandering thread...

            --
            Noel Jones
          • Wietse Venema
            ... A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that corrects Postfix behavior without adequate justification. According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Chad Whitacre:
              > Wietse,
              >
              > > Sorry, that is backwards.
              > >
              > > If you want to "correct" Postfix behavior, then you need to
              > > provide supporting documentation that Postfix is in error.
              > >
              > > So please point out the relevant sections of email related
              > > RFCs, otherwise I suggest that you refrain from posting
              > > "corrections".
              >
              > We've got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN
              > means something different in SMTP than DNS. I'm not trying to
              > correct Postfix behavior, I'm trying to find the best reference
              > to add to Wikipedia's article on FQDNs. If I'm not mistaken, 5321
              > 2.3.5 is this reference (and, coincidentally, it appears that
              > 5321 is being published as we speak). Yes?

              A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects" Postfix
              behavior without adequate justification.

              According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as SEPARATOR
              not TERMINATOR in domain names.

              Wietse
            • mouss
              ... Does DNS even define a hostname ? My understanding is that this is a natural term, not a technically defined one (after all, on many systems, the
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Noel Jones wrote:
                > Welcome to postfix!
                >
                > Valid hostnames in mail are not the same as valid DNS hostnames. Mail
                > hostnames never end with a dot.

                Does DNS even define a "hostname"? My understanding is that this is a
                "natural" term, not a technically defined one (after all, on many
                systems, the "hostname" is not FQDN, et names like "foo_bar" are ok,
                eventhough they can't be used as "mail" hostnames).

                >
                > The current behavior is correct and won't be changed.
                >
                > but thanks for your willingness to help and taking the effort to supply
                > a patch.
                >
              • Chad Whitacre
                Wietse, ... o I raised a legitimate issue. SMTP s use of FQDN is not widely known. Afaict, it was not even formally defined until RFC 5321 was published
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wietse,

                  > A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects"
                  > Postfix behavior without adequate justification.
                  >
                  > According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as
                  > SEPARATOR not TERMINATOR in domain names.

                  o I raised a legitimate issue. SMTP's use of "FQDN" is not
                  widely known. Afaict, it was not even formally defined until
                  RFC 5321 was published today--during our conversation.

                  o I provided a patch.

                  o I apologized quickly for calling this behavior a bug.

                  o I never used the word "corrects" or otherwise implied that
                  Postfix has it wrong.

                  o I accepted your and Noel's clarifications about the use of
                  "FQDN" in SMTP.

                  o I followed your advice in searching the IETF-SMTP list for
                  more info.

                  o I updated the Wikipedia article on FQDN's accordingly.

                  o Here was my misunderstanding: I thought you posted the
                  message about RFCs 5321 and 5322, and were asking me to
                  cite these in the Wikipedia article. My fault, sorry.

                  o I asked for help in finding the specific reference.

                  o I found the reference myself.

                  o I updated Wikipedia again.


                  I'm human, I make mistakes, and I hope I apologize for them. But
                  I'm not an idiot and I'm not malicious. I'm on your side. Don't
                  you think you could lighten up a little?



                  chad




                  Wietse Venema wrote:
                  > Chad Whitacre:
                  >> Wietse,
                  >>
                  >> > Sorry, that is backwards.
                  >> >
                  >> > If you want to "correct" Postfix behavior, then you need to
                  >> > provide supporting documentation that Postfix is in error.
                  >> >
                  >> > So please point out the relevant sections of email related
                  >> > RFCs, otherwise I suggest that you refrain from posting
                  >> > "corrections".
                  >>
                  >> We've got a misunderstanding. I accept your statement that FQDN
                  >> means something different in SMTP than DNS. I'm not trying to
                  >> correct Postfix behavior, I'm trying to find the best reference
                  >> to add to Wikipedia's article on FQDNs. If I'm not mistaken, 5321
                  >> 2.3.5 is this reference (and, coincidentally, it appears that
                  >> 5321 is being published as we speak). Yes?
                  >
                  > A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects" Postfix
                  > behavior without adequate justification.
                  >
                  > According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as SEPARATOR
                  > not TERMINATOR in domain names.
                  >
                  > Wietse
                  >
                • Noel Jones
                  ... An interesting observation. Yes, I believe the dozens of DNS related RFCs mostly talk about domain name (aka. FQDN) and host address (referring to
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    mouss wrote:
                    > Noel Jones wrote:
                    >> Welcome to postfix!
                    >>
                    >> Valid hostnames in mail are not the same as valid DNS hostnames.
                    >> Mail hostnames never end with a dot.
                    >
                    > Does DNS even define a "hostname"? My understanding is that this is a
                    > "natural" term, not a technically defined one (after all, on many
                    > systems, the "hostname" is not FQDN, et names like "foo_bar" are ok,
                    > eventhough they can't be used as "mail" hostnames).

                    An interesting observation. Yes, I believe the dozens of DNS
                    related RFCs mostly talk about "domain name" (aka. FQDN) and
                    "host address" (referring to the IP) rather than "hostname",
                    but this is getting sufficiently OT that I don't really care.

                    --
                    Noel Jones
                  • mouss
                    ... Actually 5321 didn t change the definition of helo (and even 2821 didn t really change it). ... that s nice and constructive. ... sure, but it can t be
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Chad Whitacre wrote:
                      > Wietse,
                      >
                      > > A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects"
                      > > Postfix behavior without adequate justification.
                      > >
                      > > According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as
                      > > SEPARATOR not TERMINATOR in domain names.
                      >
                      > o I raised a legitimate issue. SMTP's use of "FQDN" is not
                      > widely known. Afaict, it was not even formally defined until
                      > RFC 5321 was published today--during our conversation.
                      >

                      Actually 5321 didn't change the definition of helo (and even 2821 didn't
                      really change it).

                      > o I provided a patch.

                      that's nice and constructive.

                      >
                      > o I apologized quickly for calling this behavior a bug.

                      sure, but it can't be removed from the history file ;-p

                      >
                      > o I never used the word "corrects" or otherwise implied that
                      > Postfix has it wrong.
                      >
                      > o I accepted your and Noel's clarifications about the use of
                      > "FQDN" in SMTP.
                      >
                      > o I followed your advice in searching the IETF-SMTP list for
                      > more info.

                      do you mix mail from me and mail from Wietse?

                      >
                      > o I updated the Wikipedia article on FQDN's accordingly.
                      >
                      > o Here was my misunderstanding: I thought you posted the
                      > message about RFCs 5321 and 5322, and were asking me to
                      > cite these in the Wikipedia article. My fault, sorry.
                      >
                      > o I asked for help in finding the specific reference.
                      >
                      > o I found the reference myself.
                      >
                      > o I updated Wikipedia again.
                      >
                      >
                      > I'm human, I make mistakes, and I hope I apologize for them. But I'm not
                      > an idiot and I'm not malicious. I'm on your side. Don't you think you
                      > could lighten up a little?

                      don't be upset by the "style". the trailing dot thing has already been
                      debated here a long time ago. so bringing it again does annoy those who
                      have seen the old thread. While you're not required to know all the
                      posts and discussions that happened here, don't be surprised if the
                      responses you get aren't as "smooth" as you would like. but there's no
                      hate or animosity.

                      Anyway, as Noel said, "thanks for your willingness to help...".
                    • Wietse Venema
                      ... I am enlighted, but this does not always come across in my short responses. Wietse
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 1, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Chad Whitacre:
                        > Wietse,
                        >
                        > > A mis-understanding as in posting a patch that "corrects"
                        > > Postfix behavior without adequate justification.
                        > >
                        > > According to RFC 5312 section 2.3.5, SMTP uses the dot as
                        > > SEPARATOR not TERMINATOR in domain names.
                        >
                        > o I raised a legitimate issue. SMTP's use of "FQDN" is not
                        > widely known. Afaict, it was not even formally defined until
                        > RFC 5321 was published today--during our conversation.
                        >
                        > o I provided a patch.
                        >
                        > o I apologized quickly for calling this behavior a bug.
                        >
                        > o I never used the word "corrects" or otherwise implied that
                        > Postfix has it wrong.
                        >
                        > o I accepted your and Noel's clarifications about the use of
                        > "FQDN" in SMTP.
                        >
                        > o I followed your advice in searching the IETF-SMTP list for
                        > more info.
                        >
                        > o I updated the Wikipedia article on FQDN's accordingly.
                        >
                        > o Here was my misunderstanding: I thought you posted the
                        > message about RFCs 5321 and 5322, and were asking me to
                        > cite these in the Wikipedia article. My fault, sorry.
                        >
                        > o I asked for help in finding the specific reference.
                        >
                        > o I found the reference myself.
                        >
                        > o I updated Wikipedia again.
                        >
                        >
                        > I'm human, I make mistakes, and I hope I apologize for them. But
                        > I'm not an idiot and I'm not malicious. I'm on your side. Don't
                        > you think you could lighten up a little?

                        I am enlighted, but this does not always come across in my
                        short responses.

                        Wietse
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.